80 common and uncommon errors in company valuation

This paper contains a collection and classification of 80 errors seen in company valuations performed by financial analysts, investment banks and financial consultants. The author had access to most of the valuations referred to in this paper in his capacity as a consultant in company acquisitions, sales and mergers, and arbitrage processes. Some of the errors are taken from published reports by financial analysts. We classify the errors in six main categories: 1) Errors in the discount rate calculation and concerning the riskiness of the company; 2) Errors when calculating or forecasting the expected cash flows; 3) Errors in the calculation of the residual value; 4) Inconsistencies and conceptual errors; 5) Errors when interpreting the valuation; and 6) Organizational errors.valuation; company valuation; valuation errors;

75 common and uncommon errors in company valuation

This paper contains a collection and a classification of 75 errors seen in company valuations performed by financial analysts, investment banks and financial consultants. The author had access to most of the valuations that are referred to in this paper when consulting in purchases, sales and mergers of companies, and in arbitrage processes. Some valuations are from public reports by financial analysts. The errors are classified in six main categories: 1) errors in the discount rate calculation and about the riskiness of the company; 2) errors when calculating or forecasting the expected cash flows; 3) errors in the calculation of the residual value; 4) inconsistencies and conceptual errors; 5) errors when interpreting the valuation, and 6) organizational errors.valuation; company valuation; valuation errors;

Reply to "Comment on the value of tax shields is NOT equal to the present value of tax shields"

The Comment is thought provoking and helps a lot in rethinking the value of tax shields. However, the conclusion of Fieten, Kruschwitz, Laitenberger, Löffler, Tham, Vélez-Pareja and Wonder (2005) is not correct because, as will be proven below, the main result of Fernández (2004) is correct for several situations. Equation (16a) shows that the value of tax shields depends only upon the nature of the stochastic process of the net increase of debt.Value of tax shields; present value of the net increases of debt;

Value of tax shields and the risk of the net increase of debt, The. Year 2004

The value of tax shields depends on the nature of the stochastic process of the net increase of debt; it does not depend on the nature of the stochastic process of the free cash flow. The value of tax shields in a world with no leverage cost is the tax rate times the debt, plus the tax rate times the present value of the net increases of debt. This expression is the difference between the present values of two different cash flows, each with its own risk: the present value of taxes for the unlevered company and the present value of taxes for the levered company. For perpetual debt, the value of tax shields is the debt times the tax rate. When the company is expected to repay the current debt without issuing new debt, the value of tax shields is the present value of the interest times the tax rate, discounted at the required return to debt.value tax shields; present value net increases debt; required return equity; leverage cost; unlevered beta; levered beta;

On the instability of betas: The case of Spain

It is a big mistake to use betas calculated from historical data to compute the required return to equity. It is a mistake for seven reasons: because betas calculated from historical data change considerably from one day to the next; because calculated betas depend very much on which stock index is used as the market reference; because calculated betas depend very much on which historical period is used to calculate them; because calculated betas depend on what returns (monthly, daily,…) are used to calculate them; because very often we do not know if the beta of one company is lower or higher than the beta of another; because calculated betas have little correlation with stock returns; and because the correlation coefficients of the regressions used to calculate the betas are very small. For these seven reasons we can say either that the beta calculated from historical data is not a good approximation to the company's beta, or that the CAPM does not work (the required return is affected by other factors, besides the covariance of the company's return with the market return, the risk-free rate and the market risk premium), or both things at once.beta; beta-ranked portfolios; historical beta; expected beta;

Cash flow is cash and is a fact. Net income is just an opinion

A company's profit after tax (or net income) is quite an arbitrary figure, obtained after assuming certain accounting hypotheses regarding expenses and revenues. On the other hand, its cash flow is an objective measure, a single figure that is not subject to any personal criterion. In general, to study a company's situation, it is more useful to operate with the cash flow (equity cash flow, free cash flow or capital cash flow) as it is a single figure, while the net income is one of several that can be obtained, depending on the criteria applied. Profit after tax (PAT) is equal to the equity cash flow when the company is not growing, buys fixed assets for an amount identical to depreciation, keeps debt constant, and only writes off or sells fully depreciated assets. Profit after tax (PAT) is also equal to the equity cash flow when the company collects in cash, pays in cash, holds no stock (this company's working capital requirements are zero), and buys fixed assets for an amount identical to depreciation. When making projections, the dividends and other forecast payments to shareholders must be exactly equal to expected equity cash flows.Cash flow; Net income; Equity cash flow; Free cash flow; Capital cash flow;

How to value a seasonal company by discounting cash flows

The correct way of valuing seasonal companies by cash flow discounting is to use monthly data. It is possible to use annual data, but it requires some adjustments. In this paper the author shows that when using annual data in the context of the adjusted present value (APV), the calculations of the value of the unlevered equity (Vu) and the value of the tax shields (VTS) must be adjusted. However, the debt that has to be substracted to calculate the equity value does not need to be adjusted. The author derives the adjustments to be made. The errors due to using annual data without making the adjustments are big. Adjusting the calculations only by using average debt and average working capital requirements does not provide a good approximation. When the inventories are a liquid commodity such as grain or seeds, it is not correct to consider all of them as working capital requirements. Excess inventories financed with debt are equivalent to a set of futures contracts. The author shows that not considering them as such leads to an undervaluation of the company. This paper values a company in which the seasonality is due to the purchases of raw materials: the company buys and pays for all raw materials in the month of December. It is shown that the equity value calculated using annual data without making the adjustments understates the true value by 45% if the valuation is done at the end of December, and overstates the true value by 38% if the valuation is done at the end of November. The error due to adjusting only by using average debt and average working capital requirements ranges from -17.9% to 8.5%.valuation seasonal companies; seasonality; cash flow discounting;

Equivalence of ten different discounted cash flow valuation methods

This paper shows that ten methods of company valuation using discounted cash flows (WACC; equity cash flow; capital cash flow; adjusted present value; residual income; EVA; business's risk-adjusted equity cash flow; business's risk-adjusted free cash flow; risk-free-adjusted equity cash flow; and risk-free-adjusted free cash flow) always give the same value when identical assumptions are used. This result is logical, since all the methods analyze the same reality using the same assumptions; they differ only in the cash flows taken as the starting point for the valuation. We present all ten methods, allowing the required return to debt to be different from the cost of debt. Seven methods require an iterative process. Only the APV and business risk-adjusted cash flows methods do not require iteration.discounted cash flow valuation; valuation; equity cash flow; free cash flow;

Equity premium: Historical, expected, required and implied

Equity premium designates four different concepts: Historical Equity Premium (HEP); Expected Equity Premium (EEP);Required Equity Premium (REP); and Implied Equity Premium (IEP). We highlight the confusing message conveyed in the literature regarding equity premium and its evolution. The confusion arises from not distinguishing among the four concepts and from not recognizing that although the HEP is equal for all investors, the REP, the EEP and the IEP differ for different investors. A unique IEP requires assuming homogeneous expectations for expected growth (g), but we show that there are several pairs (IEP, g) that satisfy current prices. We claim that different investors have different REPs and that it is impossible to determine the REP for the market as a whole, because it does not exist. We also investigate the relationship between (IEP - g) and the risk-free rate. There is a kind of schizophrenic approach to valuation: while all authors admit different expectations of equity cash flows, most authors look for a single discount rate. It seems as if the expectations of equity cash flows are formed in a democratic regime, while the discount rate is determined in a dictatorship.equity premium; equity premium puzzle; required market risk premium; historical market risk premium; expected market risk premium; risk premium; market risk premium; market premium;

Levered and unlevered Beta

We prove that in a world without leverage cost the relationship between the levered beta ( L) and the unlevered beta ( u) is the No-costs-of-leverage formula: L = u + ( u - d) D (1 - T) / E. We also analyze 6 alternative valuation theories proposed in the literature to estimate the relationship between the levered beta and the unlevered beta (Harris and Pringle (1985), Modigliani and Miller (1963), Damodaran (1994), Myers (1974), Miles and Ezzell (1980), and practitioners) and prove that all provide inconsistent results.unleveredbeta; levered beta; asset beta; value of tax shields; required return to equity; leverage cost;